Las Vegas and Quebec it is

[WordsOfWisdom]

Someone needs to buy Bettman a map.

 

I have one right here. I'll sell it for only $500 million dollars.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Dallas is STILL in the "East" - and woe be unto the Commissioner who attempts to move them.

 

NHL/Two Conferences/Four Divisions could work after expansion, too:

AMPERSAND CONFERENCE

QUEEBS & DWEEBS

Montreal

Ottawa

Quebec

Boston

BIG CITIES & BUFFALO

Tronno

Islanders

Buffalo

Devils

WINGS & THINGS

Detroit

Minnesota

Chicago

St. Louis

CANUCKS & SUCH

Vancouver

Winnipeg

Calgary

Edmonton

 

AMERICAN LEAGUE

LIBERTY

Philadelphia

Rangers

New Jersey

Pittsburgh

JUSTICE

Columbus

Nashville

Dallas

Vegas

FREEDOM

Washington

Carolina

Florida

Tampa Bay

GULLYFORNYA

Los Angeles

Anaheim

Seattle Arizona

San Jose

 

 

ROFL at the division names! 

[WordsOfWisdom]

My suggestion is along the lines of football again, instead of East/West go National and American conferences or whatever name you want. Each conference with a Western division, again, like football. No reason it could not work. With zero expansion it is ideal, six divisions of five teams each three per conference. Very, very manageable. Someone needs to buy Bettman a map. And while football is lacking in every single area in comparision to football, the one exception is conference management. Hell, for years they had Atlanta in the West and people just lived with it. I understand that it is one thing when you play once per week and another entirely when you play three a week. But this should be the easiest thing in the world to fix.

 

I'd vote for Campbell and Wales conferences again. Preserve the history of the league. Names like "American xxxx" wouldn't fly with Canadian hockey fans anymore than having a "Canadian xxxxxxx" would fly with US viewers. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

I just don't see how it works with three "Conference" winners.

 

I'm starting to figure it out... I think....

 

• Top 5 teams in each of the 3 conferences make the playoffs. (Division winners are in for sure, regardless of point total.)
• Wildcard team becomes playoff team #16 and can come from any conference.
• Best team overall (President's trophy winner) plays the wildcard team. (#1 vs #16)
• Then you go #2 vs #15, #3 vs #14 and so on for the remaining series.

 

[ScottM]

I've been mulling all of this over, and here's my proposal assuming we have expansion in Quebec and Las Vegas and no relocation occurs:

 

Create four eight team divisions, and expand the regular season to 84 games once again. Each team place their divisional rivals four times each season, three games against each team in one of the other three divisions (rotated each year), and two games against each team in the other two divisions. Each team will play two home games and one road game against four of the teams in the division they play three games against, and one home game and two road games against the other four (again, rotate that each time said divisions are paired to ensure long-term balance). Under this system, the divisions would operate more or less independent of conferences in the regular season, and over the long run, each team will play the same number of games against each team outside of their division, which should be a bonus for the fans.

 

Here are my proposed divisions:

 

Adams Division

Bruins

Canadiens

Devils

Islanders

Maple Leafs

Nordiques

Rangers

Senators

 

Patrick Division

Blackhawks

Blue Jackets

Flyers

Jets

Penguins

Red Wings

Sabres

Wild

 

Norris Division

Blues

Capitals

Coyotes

Hurricanes

Lightning

Panthers

Predators

Stars

 

Smythe Division

Avalanche

Black Knights

Canucks

Ducks

Flames

Kings

Oilers

Sharks

 

I tried to balance geography and traditional alignments, giving precedence to geography when necessary, since that will be the driving issue of any such realignment. The top four teams in each division will make it to the playoffs, with the first and fourth place and second and third place teams of each division squaring off against one another. The concept of a conference will exist to some degree once division champions have been decided, as the Adams and Patrick Division champions will face one another for the Prince of Wales Trophy, and the Norris and Smythe division winners will compete for the Campbell Bowl.

 

I'm sure it's not perfect, and could probably use some tweaks, but that's my best idea for now.

[yave1964]

@radoran

I LOVE IT that the Wings would wind up back in the old Norris black and blue division again. SOLD!

[klindsey]

Putting a team in Vegas is asking for trouble. From the standpoint of only being a tourist attraction I'd be worried attendance would never get to where they want it. On top of that, there is a constant temptation for players of gambling and getting into awkward situations.

If the dang league wasn't greedy Seattle would be perfect IMO. That city has been crapped on by the NBA and it's a shame the NHL won't embrace them.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I've been mulling all of this over, and here's my proposal assuming we have expansion in Quebec and Las Vegas and no relocation occurs:

 

Create four eight team divisions, and expand the regular season to 84 games once again. Each team place their divisional rivals four times each season, three games against each team in one of the other three divisions (rotated each year), and two games against each team in the other two divisions. Each team will play two home games and one road game against four of the teams in the division they play three games against, and one home game and two road games against the other four (again, rotate that each time said divisions are paired to ensure long-term balance). Under this system, the divisions would operate more or less independent of conferences in the regular season, and over the long run, each team will play the same number of games against each team outside of their division, which should be a bonus for the fans.

 

Here are my proposed divisions:

 

Adams Division

Bruins

Canadiens

Devils

Islanders

Maple Leafs

Nordiques

Rangers

Senators

 

Patrick Division

Blackhawks

Blue Jackets

Flyers

Jets

Penguins

Red Wings

Sabres

Wild

 

Norris Division

Blues

Capitals

Coyotes

Hurricanes

Lightning

Panthers

Predators

Stars

 

Smythe Division

Avalanche

Black Knights

Canucks

Ducks

Flames

Kings

Oilers

Sharks

 

I tried to balance geography and traditional alignments, giving precedence to geography when necessary, since that will be the driving issue of any such realignment. The top four teams in each division will make it to the playoffs, with the first and fourth place and second and third place teams of each division squaring off against one another. The concept of a conference will exist to some degree once division champions have been decided, as the Adams and Patrick Division champions will face one another for the Prince of Wales Trophy, and the Norris and Smythe division winners will compete for the Campbell Bowl.

 

I'm sure it's not perfect, and could probably use some tweaks, but that's my best idea for now.

 

LOL. That's exactly how it was in 1993.  

 

(Which is cool because I like how teams have to win out their division first before the conference finals and then Cup final. It's also way easier to track between playoff rounds.)

[ScottM]

LOL. That's exactly how it was in 1993.  

 

(Which is cool because I like how teams have to win out their division first before the conference finals and then Cup final. It's also way easier to track between playoff rounds.)

 

Yeah, I think the old setup was a good one too. The reason I like the playoff setup is that you get the intense rivalries in the early rounds, and then the highly meaningful series in the later rounds, theoretically making the entirety of the playoffs highly attractive. I used the old divisions as somewhat of a guide in creating the divisions in my proposal (as you can see from the division names). Geography did make things a little different, but I did my best to preserve natural rivalries. I think the biggest difference in my proposal and the setup of the early 90's is the lack of conferences for regular season purposes.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Yeah, I think the old setup was a good one too. The reason I like the playoff setup is that you get the intense rivalries in the early rounds, and then the highly meaningful series in the later rounds, theoretically making the entirety of the playoffs highly attractive. I used the old divisions as somewhat of a guide in creating the divisions in my proposal (as you can see from the division names). Geography did make things a little different, but I did my best to preserve natural rivalries. I think the biggest difference in my proposal and the setup of the early 90's is the lack of conferences for regular season purposes.

 

That's well said. Agreed.

 

I also like that you know who your opponent is going to be. The playoff "tree" is easily drawn. You don't need to deal with the added complexity of reseeding teams every round. It also gives meaning back to the divisions instead of the conferences. Instead of conference point totals, the focus is on position within division, which is much easier to keep track of. 

[ScottM]

That's well said. Agreed.

 

I also like that you know who your opponent is going to be. The playoff "tree" is easily drawn. You don't need to deal with the added complexity of reseeding teams every round. It also gives meaning back to the divisions instead of the conferences. Instead of conference point totals, the focus is on position within division, which is much easier to keep track of. 

 

Exactly. I prefer the eight team divisions to four team divisions for two reasons. One is, as you pointed out, it makes the playoff tree much easier to follow. The other is that with four teams in each division being left out of the playoffs, it's much more likely that the chaff is left out of the postseason than if two teams make the playoffs out of each four team division. Can you imagine both the Seahawks and Rams making the NFL playoffs in 2010, or the Panthers and Saints both going last year, if the NFL had such a setup? I'd prefer to avoid that in the NHL, and I think the larger divisions would do a better job.

[MadDevil]

Putting a team in Vegas is asking for trouble. From the standpoint of only being a tourist attraction I'd be worried attendance would never get to where they want it. On top of that, there is a constant temptation for players of gambling and getting into awkward situations.

If the dang league wasn't greedy Seattle would be perfect IMO. That city has been crapped on by the NBA and it's a shame the NHL won't embrace them.

From what I've heard none of the ownership groups in Seattle had the money to make a bid. They've known for like 2 years that the NHL wants to go to Seattle, yet they haven't been able to get their **** together during that time.

[klindsey]

From what I've heard none of the ownership groups in Seattle had the money to make a bid. They've known for like 2 years that the NHL wants to go to Seattle, yet they haven't been able to get their **** together during that time.

Not making excuses for them, but 500 mill to even get you in the door is quite a bit even for the elite people. Ha. 

[radoran]

Not making excuses for them, but 500 mill to even get you in the door is quite a bit even for the elite people. Ha. 

 

I kinda believe they are looking for a relocated team (Arizona? Florida?) rather than take on the expansion fee.

 

Which is why I could see some shenanigans with the NHL relocating either of those teams (Florida) to, say, Quebec (while collecting Quebec's franchise fee) and putting an "expansion" team (without fee) in Seattle.

[OccamsRazor]

How do you make the playoffs work with three conferences?

 

 

8 divisions wouldn't be bad (32 teams)

 

But before they have expansion i think they should just move the bad clubs first then maybe revisit this in a few years.

 

For example move Arizona to Vegas and move the Panthers to Quebec to start and just keep 30 teams.

[OccamsRazor]

I kinda believe they are looking for a relocated team (Arizona? Florida?) rather than take on the expansion fee.

 

I guess i should have finished reading through thread before posting but yeah i agree with this before...expansion...but just my opinion.

[AJgoal]

I think most fans would prefer to see teams moved/folded rather than see the league expand. But it's hugely apparent that the league doesn't feel the same.

 

You're going to have to relocate a team to the west if Quebec comes in, either on paper (Detroit/Columbus) or physically (Carolina/Florida) to a place like KC or Seattle. I don't know that Rad's idea is too far fetched, but you'd need the folks in QC to want to buy Florida or Carolina, as opposed to starting fresh with a #1/#2 overall pick and expansion selections. And the owner of the team to be sold would have to want to sell...

[MadDevil]

Not making excuses for them, but 500 mill to even get you in the door is quite a bit even for the elite people. Ha.

True, but Las Vegas and Quebec City didn't seem to have trouble coming up with it, so it's not really an unfair asking price.

[Hatrik98]

You do have to have people in those other cities that would pony up the bucks to get the team.

 

Seattle didn't make a bid - I hold out hope they will move a team there or do a switcheroo with Florida moving to Quebec and Seattle getting an expansion. And not "other Canadian City" made a bid.

 

For that matter, what "other Canadian city"? Quebec is in. That's the top eight Canadian cities. Hamilton? We've been down that road - neither Tronno nor Buffalo approve Hamilton. Moreover, Hamilton's metro area is 720K. Buffalo is half a million more than that without even counting crossover from the Niagara peninsula. Hamilton isn't even as big as Syracuse, NY (and is much smaller than Rochester, NY and Harrisburg, PA) and is on par with places like Boise, Idaho and South Bend, Indiana.

 

Kitchener? London? Not even half a million people in either metro. With Quebec in - and barring another team in Tronno - Canada is tapped out for possible NHL expansion.

 

Really, the only other option is a second team in Tronno - and it just doesn't look like the Leafs would ever allow that.

Even with Hamiltons population, a hockey market there would be a hell of a lot stronger than Vegas or Seattle. Vegas.....seriously???? People go there to gamble. They are not going to watch a hockey game in the desert. And Seattles market hardly supports a major junior team. Why can't there be multi teams in Toronto metro area? There is in New York and LA. There could be a team in Saskatoon that would draw better in Vegas.

[AJgoal]

Why can't there be multi teams in Toronto metro area? There is in New York and LA. There could be a team in Saskatoon that would draw better in Vegas.

 

The main issues with Toronto and Hamilton lie with Toronto and Buffalo, especially Toronto. The NHL has territorial exclusivity rights for each team extending 50 miles (http://sportsdocuments.com/2013/11/nhl-constitution/, Article IV). A new team can't be placed within another team's "territory" without that team giving the ok. The Leafs are the richest club in the NHL. Why would they relinquish control of that market when there are other places that want a team?

[radoran]

Why can't there be multi teams in Toronto metro area?

 

Ask the Leafs. I have no problem with it whatsoever.

 

As for Vegas, I think it's a terrible idea and have said that multiple times before and after the announcement.

 

However, it is the 30th largest metro area in the United States and has been one of the fastest growing residential areas as well. The old vision of Vegas as a "tourist trap" isn't as accurate as it once was.

 

There are almost three times as many people in Vegas as Hamilton. When it comes to the almighty television ratings for a major national network having another team in Canada doesn't mean squat.

 

Again, that's not me saying it - that's the NHL and its owners (including the owner that also happens to own the broadcast network that shows the NHL).

[WordsOfWisdom]

The main issues with Toronto and Hamilton lie with Toronto and Buffalo, especially Toronto. The NHL has territorial exclusivity rights for each team extending 50 miles (http://sportsdocuments.com/2013/11/nhl-constitution/, Article IV). A new team can't be placed within another team's "territory" without that team giving the ok. The Leafs are the richest club in the NHL. Why would they relinquish control of that market when there are other places that want a team?

 

That's exactly it. While Gary Butthurt denies it during every TV interview on the subject, it's written into the NHL's bylaws (which are/were publically available at one point). Each team "owns" a particular territory with a defined radius. No team can ever enter that circle without the approval of that franchise. In cases where teams have entered into the territory of another NHL team, they had to pay a fee to the existing team.

 

Since the Leafs own "Boardwalk" and "Park Place" on the NHL Monopoly board, with a row of "hotels" on each space, imagine what the cost would be to enter that market. Nobody on earth could afford to pay what MLSE would ask for a territorial rights fee. We're talking arguably a billion dollars.